Since the possible candidates are starting to actually announce I thought it might be time to start the topic. Besides, there was another announcement made and I didn't feel like search through any of the other threads to continue an OT discussion.

In a couple of other threads I said the top 4 candidates for the Republican nomination were going to be Pawlenty, Daniels, Huntsman and Romney. I said Huckabee, Palin and Trump were not going to run. I was right about Huckabee and Trump. Both have said they are not running. Just waiting to see what Palin does. However, I am going to stick by the opinion that she is not running.

Pawlenty will be announcing his candidacy on Monday. He is the big winner from Huckabee's decision because he becomes the Former Governor evangelical Christian in the race. If Palin decides not to run, I think Pawlenty has a lock on Iowa.

Huntsman has been spending a lot of time in New Hampshire acting like a candidate. From what I have been reading he has been having some positive reactions. I am sticking by my opinion that he will be annoucing in a couple of weeks. (I am thinking first week of June.)

Unfortunately, Mitch Daniels released today that he has decided to not run. He said his family didn't want to go through the media circus that running for President entails. While I can understand that I am a little disappointed. However, could he make a good potenial V.P. candidate?

Newt Gingrinch had a tough week. It sounds like his fundraising network is drying up as well. Rick Santorum pretty much killed the miniscule chance he had when he said John McCain didn't understand what waterboarding was this week.

Herman Cain officiall declared his candidacy yesterday as well. He is an also ran that will be out before Iowa.

I am reading some things about Rick Scott of Texas jumping into it. However, I haven't seen enough to form an opinion on it yet.

You were right about Huckabee. And I think right about Palin. Especially with two tell all books coming out about her...

There's scant evidence that candidates can enter a presidential nomination race "late" and be successful. I don't think its happened since 72. So the question really is, of the remaining potentials who is based able to handle what apper to be the potential issues. I believe that voters will decide their choice upon:
- Medicare. (The democrats are angling to make this perhaps the major issue)
- The economy (Improving slightly but still a potential weakness for Obama)
- Tax cuts for the rich and the issue of debt reduction. (You think that maybe the two will be inseperably interwined by Democrats leading into the elction?) Medicare is intertwined in this as well.
There's evidence that this is the case based upon the House race in New York right now.
source[url]: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... epublicans[/url]/

Who amongst the republicans is likely to handel Obama on these issues?
In my view getting the republican nomination seems to mean embracing the idea of Medicare cuts, protecting the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% and battling the deficit with spending cuts only, and if thats an issue that they are all tied to then does it really matter who wins the nomination Archduke?
Or is it possible to win the nomination and not be tied to the apparently minority position on these matters?

What do you consider "late" Rickyp? I remember a governor from Arkansas that did OK when he declared in October... (Oh, and he signed DOMA )

You mention the New York race and while this is not in MY district, I live only two miles from that district border so I hear campaign ads constantly, all parties have been advertising heavily.
The Dems are running on medicare being dropped
The Republicans are running on medicare being fixed (and anti-pelosi)
...both are lies to varying degree, why can't we run on real issues and facts?
They Tea Party guy is far behind and is less tp than is the Republican so go figure.
The polls have the Democrat with a slight lead but it is a traditionally Republican area

The first poll, from Siena College, shows Ms. Hochul with 42 percent of the vote, the Republican Jane Corwin with 38 percent, and Jack Davis — an unorthodox candidate who is running on the Tea Party ballot line but who has been affiliated with both major parties in the past — with 12 percent. The second, from Public Policy Polling, has Ms. Hochul with a 44-to-38 advantage over Ms. Corwin, and Mr. Davis at 13 percent.

I assume these are the polls you've heard about Tom?

So how lucky are you feeling, Tom? two special elections recently, and both of them tantalisingly close, but not actually in your district. We had one about 30 miles from me the other week, and while the result was a foregone conclusion (usually a Labour seat, with the Lib Dems being the main contenders in the past, and they wone a by-election there a few years ago, but with Lib Dem support in free-fall, and no real Tory vote to help prop them up, it was going to be a safe Labour win), it would have been nice to have voted in it. As it is, I just got to vote for myself in a local election I was never going to win, which is an odd feeling

As for the Presidential race, and let's face it the only really interesting part for now is who will get the GOP nod, it's way too early to be sure who will come on top. I don't think that early or late declaration is a big deal either, as some of those who have yet to tip their hats are big sharks with previous running form. And perhaps the Republican voters will want a relative newcomer and 'breath of fresh air'.

if you want another example of a late entrant, Reagan didn't declare his intention to stand until November 1979 (although he was considered the stand-out favourite).

From overseas (and Canada, tbf), it's not easy to see where things are going to go. I suspect it's pretty unclear in the USA, too. The influence of the Tea Party tendency is yet to be fully tested - will they be able to determine who stands against Obama? Will they become frustrated if the GOP look to be moving towards a candidate they don't like? Until we see primary votes, it's all pretty vague.

My point exactly, Danivon. Why all the rush to declare?

I guess because nature abhors a vacuum. Some of the lesser-known candidates, or less favoured ones, may wish to declare now so that they can officially raise money and get themselves out there, building some name recognition.

Even if they don't get very far, they can at least be setting their stall out for 2016 in the event that Obama is re-elected.

The nature of the Primary system means that a presence on the ground early in Iowa and Massachussetts is important. Huckabee became a serious candidate after months spent in Iowa...
In the last election the guys who came in late imploded in Iowa....
So early seems important. That and the fact that money is important and the ability to raise money for an election campaign is hampered until one declares...
But, in the end, the election will be about issues. I don't see them changing much over the next 8 months.

rickyp wrote:The nature of the Primary system means that a presence on the ground early in Iowa and Massachussetts is important. ... But, in the end, the election will be about issues. I don't see them changing much over the next 8 months.

You mean New Hampshire.

Yeah, the world is a pretty static place. These are boring times.

Ray Jay wrote:

rickyp wrote:The nature of the Primary system means that a presence on the ground early in Iowa and Massachussetts is important. ... But, in the end, the election will be about issues. I don't see them changing much over the next 8 months.

You mean New Hampshire.

At least he knows the US Constitution.

What do you expect ... he lives in Quebec. (Just kidding Ricky -- you know a lot more about the US than I know about Canada)

But he isn't all that wrong, New Hampshire is tiny and I gotta believe a good chunk of Mass. is hearing the ads and the goings-on in New Hampshire at the same time.

We do have small states in New England. New Hampshire is 70 miles wide ... our smallest, Rhode Island, is 40 miles long and 30 miles wide (more than 3X the width of pre-1967 Israel at its narrowest, not that this discussion has anything to do with that).

I listen to NPR and do not watch TV news (except Mr. Stewart) so I don't get much of the media overflow from NH.

You mean New Hampshire.

Yes of course....
Oddly I was thinking of Michelle Bachman's run for the nomination whilst I typed this...
(She of the mistaken New Hampshire geographical reference to the shots that commenced the revolutionary War...)
And I live in Ontario...

i suspect that keeping two early primaries in two small states has a number of effects on the political process. Not all of them good.
I'd include:
- placing an inordinate amount of power into the hands of a few voters
- although it allows candidates who don't have large war chests to participate in the early primaries, because the cost is presumably less than say, New York , it also means that by underperforming in either might a eliminate candidates with broad appeal in much of the rest of the country. A detriment to the selction process.
- starts the whole process far too early. People considering running have to file officially after June 1 don't they? Otherwise they can't raise money for the process.

There's probably a lot more. Frankly I think the process is a distortion of the democratic process...
What would happen if a consitutional amendment was passed that allowed for states to declare primaries on only March 3, April 3, May 3, June 3 or July 3....(or 5 other arbirtrary dates) Wouldn't there be a clearer picture of the candidates strengths if each primary was one of 5 to 15 states?

(By the way, Obama's reference to 54 states ? That came from there being 54 primary events. You smart guys know how it gets to be 54 primary events?)